Racing Evoluzione (or 'Apex') is a very poor effort indeed. The gameplay is
so repetitive it's unbelieveable. The tracks all look quite nice and the
car models with reflections are good, but a modern console racing game
running at a paltry 30fps is laughable. If Gran Turismo 3 on PS2, F355 on
DC etc can run at 60fps there's absolutely no excuse for an Xbox racing game
(particularly one hyped this much) to run so slowly. I get the impression
they simply loaded the cars with polygons to allow for some nice magazine
screenshots. Damage is purely cosmetic and has no effect on the car's
handling.
The garage section of the game has absolutely no substance, is very linear
and your choices have virtually no effect on the gameplay. Changing wings
and gear ratios isn't my idea of a comprehensive garage. Overhyped gimmick.
Period.
The handling is a slightly dumbed down version of Project Gotham which is
the good news. You can slide the car around quite nicely but using the
handbrake causes the cars to defy physics completely. It's more responsive
than Sega GT 2002 and the cars are fun to drive at first but simply not
realistic enough to keep the interest going.
The AI is pretty awful and this game uses a blatant 'catch up' mode. You
can spin out completely and chances are you'll still catch the AI cars but
you'll have a hell of a time getting past since they appear to mysteriously
match your car's speed very closely - regardless of what garage settings you
use. Having this happen race after race after race gets very tiresome and
makes the repetitve gameplay seem even more repetitive.
6/10
Project Gotham killer? Hardly. It's not even a GT3 killer.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:40:08 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Not that your opinion matters, since I'm going to buy it anyway, but
you are the first person to say anything negative about the game.
Yes, I've heard the 30 fps gripe, but 30 fps is fine with me. I've
read countless reviews of the UK version and everyone of them gave the
game high marks.
Do you understand the word "arcade"? It could mean anything but
simulation. The AI could cheat, catch up, let you catch up, or any of
a bunch of other things and it would be fine, since afterall, it is
an arcade racer. All of your gripes are based on negatives of a sim
racer. As far as I'm concerned and arcade racer's physics model could
be "floaty" or "realistic" and it would be fine with me as long as we
know what we're dealing with up front.
Go here to read some impressions from someone that sounds like he
knows his stuff:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123323
Quoted text (30 lines)
>Racing Evoluzione (or 'Apex') is a very poor effort indeed. The gameplay is >so repetitive it's unbelieveable. The tracks all look quite nice and the >car models with reflections are good, but a modern console racing game >running at a paltry 30fps is laughable. If Gran Turismo 3 on PS2, F355 on >DC etc can run at 60fps there's absolutely no excuse for an Xbox racing game >(particularly one hyped this much) to run so slowly. I get the impression >they simply loaded the cars with polygons to allow for some nice magazine >screenshots. Damage is purely cosmetic and has no effect on the car's >handling. > >The garage section of the game has absolutely no substance, is very linear >and your choices have virtually no effect on the gameplay. Changing wings >and gear ratios isn't my idea of a comprehensive garage. Overhyped gimmick. >Period. > >The handling is a slightly dumbed down version of Project Gotham which is >the good news. You can slide the car around quite nicely but using the >handbrake causes the cars to defy physics completely. It's more responsive >than Sega GT 2002 and the cars are fun to drive at first but simply not >realistic enough to keep the interest going. > >The AI is pretty awful and this game uses a blatant 'catch up' mode. You >can spin out completely and chances are you'll still catch the AI cars but >you'll have a hell of a time getting past since they appear to mysteriously >match your car's speed very closely - regardless of what garage settings you >use. Having this happen race after race after race gets very tiresome and >makes the repetitve gameplay seem even more repetitive. > >6/10 >Project Gotham killer? Hardly. It's not even a GT3 killer.Unfortunately, if you're going to have arcade handling (I agree that that's
fine) then you need to have some well-crafted arcade gameplay and that's
where Apex falls flat on its face. I agree about it being repetitive. This
game promised so much and delivers so little. Project Gotham has far better
gameplay mainly due to its variety. With Apex, it's just race after race
after race after race.....and that simply doesn't work for an arcade game.
The upgrades to the cars are so boring and pathetic that it adds nothing to
the game whatsoever. Yet another game for people who like looking at pretty
cars and nothing else....
> Go here to read some impressions from someone that sounds like he
> knows his stuff:
>
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123323
He even admits that he's only just started playng the game. Most of what he
says is true - the graphics are top-notch. However, releasing a 30fps game
was a very stupid thing to do. If there's any games that demand a high
frame rate, it's arcade racing games. This feels like a step backwards to
me. I used to play 30fps games back in the Playstation days but since the
Dreamcast was released, 60fps has become the standard for high-quality
racing games. You can have the prettiest scenary in the world, but if it's
juddering past you it destroys any illusion of reality.
This game was hyped as allowing you to design and race your own sports car.
Telling some idiot in a garage to design a car and then changing the colour
and adjusting the wing does not constitute "Designing your own car" I doubt
that anyone over the age of 10 would get excited at the prospect of doing
that.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:19:10 +1000, "Damien Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, if you're going to have arcade handling (I agree that that's
>fine) then you need to have some well-crafted arcade gameplay and that's
>where Apex falls flat on its face.
From the reviews I've seen, the most notable feature (designing your
own car) doesn't work anything at all like you'd expect.
Jason
Steve Simpson wrote:
How do you turn on the frame rate display in this game?
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Racing Evoluzione (or 'Apex') is a very poor effort indeed. The gameplay is > so repetitive it's unbelieveable. The tracks all look quite nice and the > car models with reflections are good, but a modern console racing game > running at a paltry 30fps is laughable. If Gran Turismo 3 on PS2, F355 on > DC etc can run at 60fps there's absolutely no excuse for an Xbox racing game > (particularly one hyped this much) to run so slowly. I get the impression > they simply loaded the cars with polygons to allow for some nice magazine > screenshots. Damage is purely cosmetic and has no effect on the car's > handling.> How do you turn on the frame rate display in this game?
You can't but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell that it's
running at 30fps.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:42:03 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>> How do you turn on the frame rate display in this game?
>
>You can't but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell that it's
>running at 30fps.
>
But actually I work for NASA and I am a rocket scientist, so will it
be easy for me to tell?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:30:24 GMT, B. Keith Barbour
<[email hidden]> wrote:
If you ever program a scrollbar for NASA, then the difference between
60fps and 30fps becomes highly noticable, and indeed will be easy to
tell from there on.
60fps is more than twice as silky smooth as 30fps.
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
